Hayduke Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Tremendous power grab? Choosing a nickname is a tremendous power grab? ND's executive is one of the constitutionally weakest in the country, if not THE weakest. Cripes, its illegal for the Governor to even threaten a veto. . Not to go off topic, but I find that interesting. Was it changed after the Wild Bill Langer days? Quote
CAS4127 Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 http://www.grandfork...icle/id/229764/ http://www.grandfork...icle/id/229764/ More detail Hmmmm . . . this is getting interesting. I am gonna have to read the basis for enjoining the vote. That's an angle not yet discussed by anyone that I recall. Quote
ScottM Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Absolutely. In fact, it is so tremendous that the SBHE has filed a lawsuit directly to our state's highest court in order to retire that very nickname, which is what you want, isn't it? The "tremendous power grab" of which you complain was launched by Clueless Al. The Board is merely trying to defend its constitutional turf. Quote
PhillySioux Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Not to go off topic, but I find that interesting. Was it changed after the Wild Bill Langer days? I dont know when, it is in the constitution that a Governor cannot "Menace" the legislature with his veto power. Quote
CAS4127 Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 What happened to that?? Darrell: From what I am reading, they are still challenging the constitutionality of Carlson's law. Could they be referencing a "contracts clause" challenge to the proposed state constitutional amendment process? Or if the NDSC rules that the first law didn't exist and correspondingly the second law didn't exist, there's nothing to vote on in June. Or both? I don't think there is a "contracts clause" arguement that is applicable to this case. As for you second point, and without trying to be post repetitive, the Repeal Law has substance beyond the repeal-->namely, the 3-year waiting period. Time will shake all this out for us I guess . . . Quote
Benny Baker Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 The "tremendous power grab" of which you complain was launched by Clueless Al. The Board is merely trying to defend its constitutional turf. Yup, the argument goes both ways depending on whether one's views side with the legislature or executive branch. It would be a bit naive to say that this isn't tremendous when a lawsuit has been filled directly with the North Dakota Supreme Court. With that said, the Supreme Court has made it very clear that the SBHE has no lawmaking power and that the Board is an administrative body. You guys can cite the constitutional language all you want. But some of you really need to start reading the Supreme Court's case law (binding precedent) that is interpreting those very provisions. Quote
darell1976 Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Darrell: From what I am reading, they are still challenging the constitutionality of Carlson's law. I don't think there is a "contracts clause" arguement that is applicable to this case. As for you second point, and without trying to be post repetitive, the Repeal Law has substance beyond the repeal-->namely, the 3-year waiting period. Time will shake all this out for us I guess . . . if that whole thing is gone including the 3 year waiting period. UND IMO will have a new name and logo by the end of the year. They need a replacement quick before any more lawsuits or petitions. Which isn't good because any name will look good now to them. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 As for you second point, and without trying to be post repetitive, the Repeal Law has substance beyond the repeal-->namely, the 3-year waiting period. If Carlson's Folly is unconstitutional, the repeal would be unconstitutional as if you don't have the power to make, you don't have the power to unmake. And if you have neither make nor unmake power, do you even have the power to put a hold on? If they toss out all of both law there's nothing to vote on in June. Quote
CAS4127 Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 If Carlson's Folly is unconstitutional, the repeal would be unconstitutional as if you don't have the power to make, you don't have the power to unmake. And if you have neither make nor unmake power, do you even have the power to put a hold on? I get what you are getting at . . . and I am not sure!! If you think about it, even the repeal law will likely be unconstitutional if Carlson's law is found to be, given that the repeal law is telling UND it has to wait 3 years. If the legislature can't tell you to keep the nickname, it can't tell you to wait 3 years before adopting another one. Bottomline-->I need to see the filings. Peace out ss.com!!! Quote
Benny Baker Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I get what you are getting at . . . and I am not sure!! If you think about it, even the repeal law will likely be unconstitutional if Carlson's law is found to be, given that the repeal law is telling UND it has to wait 3 years. If the legislature can't tell you to keep the nickname, it can't tell you to wait 3 years before adopting another one. Bottomline-->I need to see the filings. Peace out ss.com!!! Filings? http://legacy.grandforksherald.com/pdfs/Brief%20in%20Support%20of%20Application%20for%20Writ%20of%20Injunction%20Under%20Original%20Jurisdiction%20-%20UND%20Sioux%20Nickname%20Referral.pdf Quote
Fetch Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 "if that whole thing is gone including the 3 year waiting period. UND IMO will have a new name and logo by the end of the year. They need a replacement quick before any more lawsuits or petitions. Which isn't good because any name will look good now to them. " this is how UND Admin. has corrupted the minds of cowards Quote
ScottM Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Filings? http://legacy.grandforksherald.com/pdfs/Brief%20in%20Support%20of%20Application%20for%20Writ%20of%20Injunction%20Under%20Original%20Jurisdiction%20-%20UND%20Sioux%20Nickname%20Referral.pdf Much more pointed and aggressive than I would have imagined, especially going after the referral process itself. I like it ... Quote
darell1976 Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 "if that whole thing is gone including the 3 year waiting period. UND IMO will have a new name and logo by the end of the year. They need a replacement quick before any more lawsuits or petitions. Which isn't good because any name will look good now to them. " this is how UND Admin. has corrupted the minds of cowards It took Central less than 3 years to pick a new name and that was with minor protesting. No lawsuits no petitions, and no new state laws. Quote
Fetch Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 yeah & I knew the cowards involved in all that too This is all a part of "cultural diversity" a imaginary wants & needs & wishful thinking of the academics Quote
Fetch Posted February 18, 2012 Posted February 18, 2012 http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/229764/ where are all these experts to help SL win & move up their lawsuits Quote
The Sicatoka Posted February 19, 2012 Posted February 19, 2012 I get what you are getting at . . . and I am not sure!! If you think about it, even the repeal law will likely be unconstitutional if Carlson's law is found to be, given that the repeal law is telling UND it has to wait 3 years. If the legislature can't tell you to keep the nickname, it can't tell you to wait 3 years before adopting another one. I'd say I was pretty close with my assumption that the SBoHE was going after the whole process meaning Carlson's Folly was unconstitutional, as is the repeal of it (all aspects, meaning repeal of the Folly and the cooling-off period). Going after the June election seems unnecessary: If the law in question on the June ballot is unconstitutional, why vote on something that'll be stricken down immediately, other than to save the money on the election process. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 OK legal-types, what does this mean? http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/230223/ Quote
PhillySioux Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 OK legal-types, what does this mean? http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/230223/ They can file a brief and argue. Quote
ScottM Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 They can file a brief and argue. And still lose their asses. You have to imagine Al Jaeger's office will be very, very careful about certifying any petitions as required by law. Quote
Benny Baker Posted March 10, 2012 Posted March 10, 2012 http://legacy.grandforksherald.com/pdfs/intervenor%20brief.pdf Quote
NDSioux11 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 thought there was going to be a ruling on this issue on March 15th. Wondering if anyone has any info on this case to date? Quote
The Sicatoka Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 thought there was going to be a ruling on this issue on March 15th. Wondering if anyone has any info on this case to date? Ruling? No. March 15 was the date that oral arguments were given before the Court. No date for a ruling was given. I'm speculating that it'll be before June ballots would to do the printer. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.